Theological Realpolitik: The Church and What It Can't Do

The most recent argument concerning the church's involvement in Prop. 8 goes thusly:

1) The Church supports traditional gender relations

2) The Church does not speak out extensively (except for a few platitudes about how we proclaim peace) on major world issues (such as the Iraq War and Darfur)

3) Therefore, the Church is "on the wrong side of history."

I rank this is one of the most worst arguments--on either side--on the Prop. 8 issue.

So let's address the merit of each premise--in turn--and discuss its relationship to the conclusion (#3).

1) Traditional gender relations

Somehow, the Church supporting the legitimization of sexual unions that has given mankind its very existence for the past gazillion years has been construed as being "on the wrong side of history." It should be noted that they are using the concept of history in the classical sense of cultural Marxism--that of "progress," of the unfolding of a new chapter--as though the newness or "presentness" (this should be a code-word to you historians out there--"presentism"--which is high-browed insult of the first order to a serious historian) of a thing made it inherently worthwhile or useful. The idea of progress is a nebulous word, devoid of any real meaning. Ultimately, it boils down to a sugary glaze for anyone's political agenda. Its usage tells us nothing about an idea's merit.

I don't think I will insult the reader by laying out the benefits heterosexuality has given to the world. Frankly, it deserves a "privileged status" if for no other reason than because we owe our existence to it. Even Ancient Greece held monogamy in high regard (in spite of the popular stories surrounding their allowance of homosexuality), noting that Cecrops, a partially divine early king of Athens, both civilized mankind and establish monogamy as the divine order.

So it's odd indeed that the Church would be on the "wrong side of history," the same history that gives this writer his very life.

2) The Church does not mobilize politically for human rights abuses

To be sure, the constant streams of comments in General Conference about the wars in the world and about how Satan rules over the peoples with blood should indicate that Church is quite aware of human rights abuses. Alexander Morrison, a member of the seventy, has done work with the U.N. in researching tropical diseases.

This is correct. But why is it? Notice...the Church doesn't even mobilize for every moral issue. It has to be a winnable one--one where the Church can command influence. Whenever a federal amendment is proposed for homosexual marriage, the Church does no more than issue a two-line statement expressing its general support. Why? Because it does not command the human resources necessary to carry out an effective campaign on a national level. The author of the cited piece seems to be outraged at the Church for recognizing what it can and cannot do.

Let's imagine that every Latter-day Saint in the Church donated five dollars to a Save Darfur fund (and the Church has donated about 17 million to humanitarian aid in conflicts worldwide--not just Darfur--in 2006 alone). Let's say President Monson condemned it specifically (note, they have offered ample condemnation of these things in general)...where would be then where we aren't now? Does that suddenly give them "street cred" in the eyes of progressives? Perhaps it would have an impact on policymakers; but perhaps it would not.

In California, on the other hand, there is a mass of human and monetary resources that can carry out what the Church (and I) see as good policy. Disagree on the policy if you wish, but intelligent people should be able to distinguish some between a campaign that will have an immediate impact and a conflict where complex geopolitical actors are tragically pulling the strings. The Church has a built-in The most the Church can do in such circumstances is provide humanitarian aid and teach its members to abhor such bloodshed. Speaking for myself, LDS doctrine has successfully taught me and countless others to do just that.

In any case, to argue that the Church is "on the wrong side of history" is at best a limited and provincial argument that defines history as nothing more than the fodder for a political tract.

True, it's on the Huffington Post--but an outrageous argument becomes no less outrageous simply because it comes from someone known for their intellectual laxity. Additionally, I have seen this argument gain some traction amongst otherwise knowledgable people.

But it won't under my watch.